The Strategic Development Committee (SDC) convened to discuss three planning applications and one listed building consent, all concerning the Truman Brewery site. The committee voted to refuse the application for a data centre at the corner of Grey Eagle Street and Kelvin Street, while also voting to refuse the application for the construction of a commercial building at Ely's Yard. The committee was minded to grant the planning application and listed building consent for the Truman's Brewery East site, but ultimately voted to refuse the application.

Presentations and Procedures

Councillor Amin Rahman, Chair of the Strategic Development Committee, opened the meeting, addressing technical difficulties with the microphone.

Paul Beckinham, Head of Development Management Planning and Building Control, outlined the standing orders for determining planning applications, emphasising that decisions must align with the development plan and material planning considerations. He clarified that all applications were subject to appeals against non-determination¹, meaning the Planning Inspectorate would make the final decision after a public inquiry in October. The committee's role was to determine the council's stance at the inquiry: whether to argue for grant or refusal, and the reasons.

Land at the Corner of Grey Eagle Street and Kelvin Street E1 (Data Centre)

The committee considered planning application PA/24/01450 for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of a 29-metre high data centre at the corner of Grey Eagle Street and Kelvin Street E1. Officers recommended refusal, a position the committee ultimately supported.

Kevin, planning case officer, presented the application, highlighting that the site is within the Brick Lane and Fournier Street Conservation Area, the Tire Elements Activity Area, and the City Fringe Opportunity Area. The proposed data centre would have blank frontages, minimal street-level activity, and limited community benefits. He cited London Plan Policy D3, which emphasises a design-led approach that enhances the public realm and responds to local character, arguing that the proposal failed to meet these expectations.

Alec Forshaw from the Spitalfield Trust objected, arguing that the scheme was almost entirely commercial, harmed the character and appearance of the conservation area, and provided inadequate public realm, green space, or community facilities. He stated that Tower Hamlets has a housing crisis and has identified the brewery, including this site, as a place where substantial amounts of social housing could and should be built.

Jonathan Mobley, a member of Save Brick Lane, noted the petition against the proposal had over 2,600 signatures. He stated that the proposals ran counter to the council's vision for a housing-led scheme and that the developer had not bothered to turn up, revealing their utter content for local democracy. He asked the committee to question the officer's opinion that no material weight could be attributed to the draft local plan.

During the question and answer session, councillors raised concerns about the consultation process, the precedent of a data centre in a residential area, and the impact on the townscape.

In the debate, councillors agreed with the officer's recommendation for refusal, citing the need for more residential housing, the limited employment opportunities, and the harm to the conservation area.

Paul Beckinham confirmed that while data centres are supported in national policy, other planning considerations are material to their location. He stated that the proposed data centre would not contribute to the vitality and viability of the town centre, job creation would be very limited, and the design, scale, and bulk would harm the conservation area.

Ian Austin, Principal Lawyer, Planning, Legal Services, Governance, urged the committee to filter through the comments made by the objectors and lift what was relevant from what they said and apply it to this application only.

The committee voted unanimously to refuse planning permission, citing the design, the lack of local benefit, and the public opposition.

Land Bounded By Grey Eagle Street and Dray Walk Ely's Yard, Grey Eagle Street, London, E1 (Ely's Yard)

The committee then considered planning application PA/24/01439 for the construction of a part four, part five, and part six-storey commercial building at Ely's Yard, with market space at ground floor and office space above. Officers recommended granting planning permission, but the committee voted to refuse.

Kevin, planning case officer, presented the application, noting that the site is within the Brickline Conservation Area, the District Centre, the Tower Hamlets Activity Area, and the City Fringe. The proposal included a new pedestrian link from Ely's Yard onto Grey Eagle Street. He stated that the scheme would create 260 jobs, contribute £25 million in economic output, and include affordable workspace at a 45% discount.

John Burrell, a trustee of the Spitalfield Trust, objected, stating that the proposal's height and bulk were inappropriate and that the use of the building was not in line with the community-led master plan.

Susan, from the Save Brook Lane coalition, stated that the proposal had zero housing, contravened the local plan, and would worsen antisocial behaviour.

During the question and answer session, councillors asked about the lack of affordable housing, the design and scale of the development, and the potential for increased antisocial behaviour.

In the debate, councillors expressed disappointment that the applicants were not present to answer questions. They raised concerns about the design, the lack of residential units, and the impact on the conservation area.

Paul Beckinham summarised why officers recommended approval, highlighting the consolidation of uses, the affordable workspace, and the design's compatibility with the conservation area.

Ian Austin reminded the committee to concentrate on the local plan and development plan and that the scheme had been judged as ticking the relevant land use policies in respect to the local plan.

The committee voted unanimously not to accept the officer's recommendation and then voted to refuse planning permission, citing the design, scale, massing, and lack of community benefit.

Truman's Brewery Land Fronting Brick Lane, Buxton Street, Spittle Street, Woodser Street, and Hanbury Street E1

The committee then considered planning application PA/24/01451 and listed building consent PA/24/01475 for the Truman's Brewery East site, which included the demolition of existing structures (excluding the Boiler House and Cooperage buildings), construction of five new buildings, and alterations to the Boiler House. Officers recommended granting both the planning application and listed building consent, but the committee voted to refuse the application.

Kevin, planning case officer, presented the application, stating that the scheme would deliver five new buildings, 44 new residential homes (36% affordable), two new public squares, and new pedestrian routes. He stated that the scheme aligned with local and London plan policies and would deliver significant economic and regenerative benefits.

Saif Osmani from the Bengal East End Heritage Society objected, stating that they were not consulted properly and that the proposed development looked like something out of a bland AI generated cityscape.

Faisal Ahmed from the Save Brick Lane campaign stated that the planning applications offered very little to the people who live, work and struggle there on a day to day basis and that the Truman's proposal did not offer an adequate amount of social homes or green spaces.

Councillor Asma Islam, councillor for Weaver's Ward, objected to the scheme, citing the loss of public realm, the commercialisation and lack of affordable housing, heritage and design harm, and accessibility and overspill.

Councillor Peter Golds stated that the proposal of six new homes for 20,000 people was laughable and that the area needed housing for our people.

Councillor Abutala Chowdhury stated that the application was of great interest and that his objections to this scheme were primarily focused on three key areas: housing, heritage and business.

During the question and answer session, councillors asked about the alignment with the local plan, the design and scale of the development, and the safeguarding of local businesses.

In the debate, councillors expressed disappointment that the applicants were not present to answer questions. They raised concerns about the lack of affordable housing, the impact on the heritage and cultural character of the area, and the potential for increased antisocial behaviour.

Paul Beckinham summarised why officers felt they should recommend approval and urged the committee to tread very carefully in terms of any weight to be afforded to the emerging local plan.

Ian Austin urged the committee to look at their strongest reasons for refusal and reminded them that the application did tick planning policy land use.

The committee voted unanimously not to accept the officer's recommendation and then voted to refuse planning permission, citing the failure to meet local needs, the lack of affordable housing, and the undermining of the area's heritage.